Article View: sci.bio
Article #2672Re: artificial breeding
From: Paul S. Winalski
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 04:07
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 04:07
39 lines
2818 bytes
2818 bytes
In article <ldsoderb.724677131@reading>, ldsoderb@susssys1.reading.ac.uk (David S. Oderberg) writes: |> |>Could someone please tell me whether artificial breeding/selection has |>so far produced any news species, according to the generally accepted |>definition/s of `species' among biologists (interbreeding capacity etc.)? |>Even including the very latest in biotechnological achievements, has the |>creation of new species been attained? |> |>I am aware of the alleged creation of plant hybrids which can't be crossed |>with either parent species: do these, if they exist, qualify? There are quite a lot of cases of this, if you use the generally accepted definition of "same species" and "different species", namely, populations of organisms that, if brought together geographically, will merge into a single breeding population are considered to be in the same species, while those that will remain distinct, due to physical or behavioral reproductive isolation, are considered to be of different species. Consider the domestic dog, for example. Chihuahuas and Great Danes are quite reproductively isolated, physically. They are considerably more distinct on both morphological and biological grounds than Mallard and Pintail ducks, which are generally recognized as separate species, although they freely interbreed and hybridize in captivity. Yes, one can mix the two populations of dogs by "transitive closure" using intermediate breeds of dogs, but the situation has several natural analogs to clinal variation among closely related species in the wild, where the ends of the cline are reproductively distinct and considered two species, but there is a chain of hybrids that link the two populations. Since new "species" of dogs can essentially be created this way more or less at will by selective breeding, taxonomists don't bother to give them all status as separate species, which technically they are entitled to, but instead lump them all together in the single species Canis domesticus. From a practical standpoint, it simply isn't useful to consider all the domestic breeds and strains as separate species. --PSW
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Dec19.040736.27360@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!dbased.nuo.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!adserv.enet.dec.com!winalskiReferences:
<ldsoderb.724677131@reading>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.bio Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!dbased.nuo.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!adserv.enet.dec.com!winalski From: winalski@adserv.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski) Subject: Re: artificial breeding Message-ID: <1992Dec19.040736.27360@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> Keywords: artificial, natural, selection, species Lines: 39 Sender: usenet@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com (USENET News System) Reply-To: winalski@adserv.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski) Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Nashua NH References: <ldsoderb.724677131@reading> Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 04:07:36 GMT